Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Lewis
Citation: 111 F. App'x 876Docket: No. 03-30281; D.C. No. CR-01-00149-A-JWS
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 28, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Daniel Lewis appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and a 10-year federal sentence. The appellate court affirms the conviction, reviewing the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. A new trial may be warranted if newly discovered evidence, fulfilling specific criteria, could likely result in an acquittal. The court found that Lisa Lewis's testimony, which aimed to impeach her brother Randy's credibility, was not sufficiently material. Her testimony was deemed cumulative, as prior evidence established Randy's unreliability due to alcoholism. Furthermore, Randy's testimony was corroborated by physical evidence linking Lewis to the crime scene. The district court also determined Lisa lacked credibility, noting her previous police report against Lewis contradicted her current claims. The district court carefully assessed the admissibility of photographic evidence related to the case, concluding it was relevant and not overly prejudicial. Lastly, the appellate court reviews de novo interpretations of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court appropriately enhanced the appellant's sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) and § 2X1.1 due to his conviction for intentionally damaging an oil pipeline, violating Alaska Statute 11.46.480(3). The appellant argued that the enhancement under § 2K2.1(e)(1)(A) requires the underlying offense to be similar to the federal offense and cannot apply if the enhancing offense has a higher mens rea. However, there is no support in the Guidelines or case law for such limitations. The sentence also adheres to the Sixth Amendment principles established in Blakely v. Washington and clarified in United States v. Ameline, as it was based solely on the jury's conviction of the state offense that justified the federal sentence increase. The judgment is affirmed, and the disposition cannot be published or cited except under specific Ninth Circuit rules.